View Single Post
04-19-2012, 10:06 PM
Maruk moustache
Registered User
Maruk moustache's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Backstrom #19 View Post
From Bob McKenzie's twitter...
I think that's what the rule most strongly suggests. It could well be that that result is dictated by a commentary that I don't have in the version of the rulebook at the NHL website. But all the rules actually say about it as far as I can tell is that the ref gets to decide what to do in the event of a dispute and his decision is final.

This situation isn't actually listed in Rule 78.5 among the several reasons listed for disallowing goals (unless the ref does in fact blow his whistle when the time should have run out and a goal is purportedly scored after that, in which case it has to be disallowed). Rule 34.7 doesn't actually say what must happen in this situation, although, to me, it does seem to suggest that disallowing the goal would be correct, but it's really just an implication, and not at all a directive. All Rule 34.7 actually says about this situation is that the ref gets to decide what to do, and his decision is final.

Edit: Bob McKenzie tweeted that had Boston scored in the final 5 seconds it would have been disallowed--that's what I'm referring to.

Last edited by Maruk moustache: 04-19-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Maruk moustache is offline   Reply With Quote